Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

Pradeep Kumar vs Chief Manager/ on 9 December, 2024

Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         W.P.(C) No.30607 of 2024

            Pradeep Kumar
            Sahoo                     .....      Petitioner
                                               Ms. Namita Pattanaik,
                                               Advocate

                                    -versus-

            Chief Manager/
            Authorized Officer,
            State Bank of India,
            Stressed Assets
            Recovery Branch,
            Bhubaneswar and
                                      .....    Opp. Parties
            others

                                               Mr. Ashok Kumar Sarangi,
                                               Advocate (Caveators)

                                               Ms. Mamata Tripathy,
                                               Advocate for the
                                               State Bank of India

                                   CORAM:
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

                                    ORDER

Order No. 09.12.2024

01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash Annexure-2 and 3 and direct the D.R.T., Cuttack to dispose of the S.A. No.48 of 2024 pending under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 within a stipulated time.

Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. -Vrs.- Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320 has deprecated the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, where efficacious alternative remedy has been prescribed in the statute itself. The Hon'ble Court went on to hold as follows:

"16. Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the non-compliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative."

In view of the settled position of law as held hereinabove so also in the case of Hemraj Ratnakar Salian -Vrs.- HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors. Reported in (2021) 20 Supreme Court Cases 395 and Kanaiyalal Page 2 of 3 Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 782, since the petitioner has already availed the alternative and efficacious remedy, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, we direct the DRT, Cuttack to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of three months in accordance with law from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Rajesh Signature Not Verified Page 3 of 3 Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Dec-2024 10:33:11